Gay marriage to be illegal in Church of England


Culture Secretary Maria Miller wanted ''fairness to be at the heart of the proposals''

Related Stories

The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said.

But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing".

The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015.

Labour backs the government's decision to legislate on same-sex marriages, which will apply to England and Wales, and urged ministers not to be "too reserved" in promoting the policy.

Party leader Ed Miliband suggested that Labour votes would "ensure that this measure is passed in the House of Commons".

The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats.


Although Culture Secretary Maria Miller has stressed the government's determination to press ahead with this plan for gay marriage, she has unveiled a series of legal concessions.

The upshot of that, it seems to me, is that only a very small number of churches or establishments are likely to be available to same-sex couples for wedding ceremonies.

That will undoubtedly appease many of her critics, particularly on her own backbenches.

The danger with the explicit legal ban on same sex marriage in the Church of England and Church in Wales, is it will anger many supporters of gay marriage who feel she has given far too much ground.

But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

  • No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
  • Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
  • Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
  • The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply

Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

She also said: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

"European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, welcomed the announcement, saying: "We should not stop people from getting married and getting that recognition from the state on grounds of gender or sexuality.

"And we should not here in Parliament say that some loving relationships have greater value than others."

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party and more than 100 Tory MPs are thought to be against the idea.

Religious freedom

One of these opponents, Peter Bone, asked the Commons: "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?"

Richard Drax said: "I would like to ask the Secretary of State and the government what right have they got, other than arrogance and intolerance, to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith?"

Another, Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: "For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women.

"So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged."

From the Commons

Some Conservative MPs grumbled during Mrs Miller's statement that promises to "preserve" marriage had been broken.

They said that when civil partnerships became law, they had been reassured that same sex marriages would not follow.

A look back at the Commons Hansard, from the second reading of the Civil Partnership Bill, on 12 October 2004, provides some evidence for their claims.

Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.

The Catholic Church stepped up its opposition, accusing ministers of ignoring a 600,000-signature petition supporting the status quo.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark, said opponents of gay marriage should lobby MPs "clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others".

In a statement, they said: "The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family.

"The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family."

But the Archbishop of Wales said that making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages would be a "step too far".

"In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it," said Dr Barry Morgan. "It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

The Bishop of Leicester, the right reverend Tim Stevens, warned the issue was creating a division between the political classes and practising religious people.

He spoke out against the government's proposals in the House of Lords and said ministers needed to work towards a consensus on the matter.

But former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said in response that a "fair number" of serving bishops supported gay marriage but were unable to say so publicly.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that he believed same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches - but only if there was a "100%" guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.

A number of other senior Tories, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major, have also backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We're delighted about the government's statement today and welcome the promise to legislate for equal marriage as warmly as on the three previous occasions that this announcement has been made.

"We're particularly pleased that ministers have been persuaded to extend their original proposal in order to permit same-sex marriages for those religious denominations that wish to hold them. This is an important matter of religious freedom."

'Husband' and 'wife'

The consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.

In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.

Rev Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, described the proposals as "disastrous"

They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages.

The government says: "That is not the case - on the contrary these proposals will allow more people to use those terms.

"Couples will continue to be able call each other whatever they wish in their personal life, and in legal and official documents, the terms husband and wife will continue to be used."

They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 142.

    Surely, in these dire times, there is a lot more important things for a Government to be doing than wasting time on this cr*p? Almost anything would be more important, like reducing the deficit, preventing ED Davey wasting any more of our money on low energy traffic lights in Mauritius, for example.

  • rate this

    Comment number 141.

    I have been to church a few times over the last few years - for weddings. I don't go otherwise and it is not just me since church attendence has been falling.

    I see that by allowing gay marriages you may have a few less people at story time each Sunday, but CofE really will become a niche interest before too long.


  • rate this

    Comment number 140.

    Typical of this government. Yet again they have put the rights of the minority before the majority. Homophobic CofE gets away with it again. Ironic that this decision is made on the day when Census info is published showing less people have a christian beleif!!! I wonder why!!

  • Comment number 139.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 138.

    "Good news, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

    Go on then, explain how we got from "Adam and Eve" to 7 billion humans without a heck of a lot of incest. As far as I recall, incest is just as forbidden as homosexuality in Christian law.

  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

    99. virtualewit

    "Woolly thinking" lies in the abandonment of definition in favour of convenience.

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    Whats the next debate, Why cant we produce children. I think neither the Church nor David Moron can help with that

  • rate this

    Comment number 135.

    I'm not quite sure what your comment was supposed to mean. It was strange even bizarre but irrelevant as homophobia and religion always are.

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    Is it that all this is just a smoke screen by the government to cover over the atrocious autumn statement and the dire consequences for a vast proportion of the population?

    Only this feckless PM could involve himself in something so polarised as this when "ordinary people" are more concerned about eating/heating and surviving and not about homosexuals and lesbians and their desires.

  • rate this

    Comment number 133.


    Like it or not, same sex relationships aren't actually what our bodies are designed for so why is there such an issue with calling it the same thing?"

    Marriage isn't what our bodies were 'designed' for either!

  • rate this

    Comment number 132.

    Absolutely appalling and ridiculous that churches appear to be beyond all realms of equality, sensibility and morality. I can't say what I want to say due to laws in this country. More protection for organised religion at the expense of society to be discriminatory . Oh well it will be their downfall , just as with sexual equality with women bishops. I suppose they rather protect their abusers.

  • rate this

    Comment number 131.

    Remember that this new law does not necessarily condone gay marriage, and it is not shoving that idea down anyone's throats. It gives religious bodies the freedom to decide for themselves. Freedom of choice and belief is what this is about, and I'm all for that.

  • rate this

    Comment number 130.

    The problem, believe it or not, is that "God" - being the one of the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians - wants gay people dead.
    It's right there in very clear terms, and this is why there is the opposition.
    So god is not homophobic as some have suggested, quite to the contrary, "He" wants them dead. Preferably by stoning.
    And we fund these barbarians....

  • rate this

    Comment number 129.

    ...but, if an institution or religion, didnt want you because of your race/sexuality/gender/disability, why would you still want to be a part of it?
    Move on, go somewhere else, enjoy the life you want to

  • rate this

    Comment number 128.

    So the Church of England has returned to the dark ages.

    Hatred, prejudice and discrimination are bad, no matter what form they take. Everyone loses.

  • rate this

    Comment number 127.

    It is not homophobic to be against this legislation. There is no need to redefine marriage and the law is good enough to protect the rights of any individual or couple in a civil partnership. Marriage is between man and woman. Politicians should stay out of our religious and faith lives. There is so much more that needs their attention.

  • rate this

    Comment number 126.

    Why legal protection only for the CofE - why not the Catholic Church. Whatever the government say there will be those who try to for gay marriage on Churches through the Court of Human Rights just to prove they can.
    Lets have a proper referendum on something that is so fundamental t our society.

  • rate this

    Comment number 125.

    Civil partnerships were designed to give the same legal rights to gay couples as marriage does for heterosexuals. My partner and I entered into our civil partnership in 2006. As gay marriages are now to be allowed does this make our civil partnership 2nd rate? We have no desire to be part of an institution, i.e. the Church, which doesn't welcome us and therefore have no wish to get "married".

  • rate this

    Comment number 124.

    Just now
    "If the law had been brought in as it stood then a CofE minister would have been compelled to marry a gay couple even if it was against his or her beliefs."
    Fair point, perhaps that is a law that is due an overhaul as well.

    Along with the policy that a significant majority vote is not enough to approve the ordination of women priests / bishops

  • rate this

    Comment number 123.

    You can’t expect a golf club (Church) to allow tennis matches (Gay or Lesbian) on their greens !


Page 47 of 54


More Politics stories



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.